Civ III A Tighter Straitjacket?

[C Chulainn]

With each version of the game, the AI has been tweaked, but only to better be able to take advantage of the game system. In all but the lowest levels of Civ III for instance, the AI always follows the formulaic starting strategy of a madcap churning out of as many settlers as possible, because this is how players won in Civ2 at Emperor/Deity level.
Therefore, the choice as to whether to do it is removed from the player - the AI knows what it must do to beat the system, and does it every time, and if you as a player don't, you will be crushed.
Where this is leading is a tighter and tighter straitjacket on the actions a player can actually take; it's a game of "crack the system" followed by another edition where the AI takes on board the cracking techniques for itself...
Is this what we want from Civ? It seems to me the uber-nerds who sit for hours and hours trying out variations until they beat the game engine are leading the game's development at the expense of people who just want the challenge of pretending to be the emperor of so-and-so and would like the AI to behave more like a person than a chess computer.

Discuss...

[Boracks]

Actually, this may be an issue with the game design industry as a whole.

If they "listen to their fans", who are they listening to but the ones that make the effort to get on the forums and say something? These are the same ones, for a large part, that play the game and analize it until they have the dependable "do this and I'll win" strategy.

A lot of games these days are listening to their fans in this manner. But is this following the best human strategy not what people want for a challenge? I cannot see them ignoring what obviously works when they come up with the parameters for the AI. Yet, is building an AI with a CIV2 strat for CIV3 going to work?

More thoughts to ponder.

[Sytass]

Although I risk being called a person unable to play the game it is intended to play (am I supposed to play the game? or the game to play me?) I am afraid I must agree.

There is hardly a chance to survive, much less get a leading spot if you don't join in on the happy settler production. It seems after a series of games that focussing on cultural development in the beginning (like building temples, improving the land around your cities) is not awarded. You are forced to expand like mad, because if you don't occupy that region of infertile mountains (which may or may not yield strategic ressoruces - a gamble which I enjoy) the computer will do so. Even if it is in the middle of your territory and has a fair chance to later be absorbed the culture way.

It would be neat - to accustom all tastes - to somehow incorporate a way of bringing more diversity to the behavior of the programmed opponent. Some should focus on slow expansion, but with full build up of the existing cities. Others should indeed settle like mad, all depending on the inherent civ style. Maybe this could also be altered when setting up a game, an option to set the drive for expansion of the prgrammed opponents. Them seeing doing the same becomes predictable too quickly.

[Simpleton]

Yes, it does seem that Firaxis crafted the higher levels just to compete with the so called expert players who exploit the game rules. I haven't decided whether this is a good thing or not though. They obviously have to make the game challenging lest it become CTP or CTP2 but perhaps the game has become too scripted at high difficulty levels. I myself mostly played Civ2 on Prince or King and never used the ICS strategies. This made for challenging and enjoyable games for me. I am concerned that I may not find the game as enjoyable if the lower levels are too easy and at the higher levels you have to play like the AI just to compete. Hopefully, this is not the case.

[The Kaiser]

This is a problem that has accured to me from time to time. How the only way for a computer A.I. to successfully win is to revert to the cut throat tactics of some "bean counting" gamers. It's difficult to see a way around it short of having 2 sub-modes to each difficulty level, perhaps entitled "Cut-throat A.I." and "Artistic A.I."

[ken01]

Another way to look at this ....

Since when did Ghandi, Queen Elizabeth, Abe Lincoln, (ie every single leader) have the EXACT same strategy and personality?

I remember way back when (Civ 1) each civilization had its own personality.

Which made it tough when you were next to the zulus or mongols, but easy when you were next to the chinese or indians.

Maybe what you all are complaining about is that the civilization leaders have no effect on the game. Rome, China, Russia - they're all the same.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by ken01
Maybe what you all are complaining about is that the civilization leaders have no effect on the game. Rome, China, Russia - they're all the same.

I concur. Even setting the aggression level in the editor seems to have no effect. At the moment, there is no difference between China and Rome other than the colour, leader/city names, and special unit. The 'passive' Indians are as aggressive as the 'war-mongering' Aztecs.

[Kc7mxo]

The way I see it the problem is that the AI knows how to win now. Its been taught a strategy that is annoying as hell and can be damn succesful.

The other half of the problem is that simply developing large powerful cities instead of just a LOT of cities doesn't work very well. There is no advantage to not sending out another settler except for corruption. And the way the resources appear you want to have as wide a swathe of territory as possible, or else you'll end up paying Cleo 50 gold a turn as well as your silks and wines for access to that damn saltpeter.

[Pyrodrew]

However, fact is that the Civ2 perfectionist AI Civs were rarely successful. Unless the AI Perfectionist style can be greatly improved I would rather have a more challenging AI than an easier one simply for variety. If scripting & other editor tools are introduced future AIs (and ones *worthy* to play against) will probably come from gamers, not Firaxis. It would be better if there was a wider variation between the "peaceful" Civs & "aggressive" Civs tho.

They also said there was a way you could turn off an AI Civs programming & "let it adapt & form" to it's surroundings. Has anyone tried this? Is it better or still the same?

[yin26]

Ah, but so many 'experts' tell me "ICS is fixed!"

And when I say that the AI has only made the city mess even worse, they booed and hissed at me. Go figure.

[Hunter Hutchins]

I saw in a certain game that India was far more forgiving than any other civ, although they were weak, confined to an island, and may have worked well that way. The AI is willing to do crap to you because of alliances and affinities regardless of the civ, I think.

[Pyrodrew]

Agreed. Someone mentioned in the "AI ruler you fear the most thread" that they couldn't get anyone to attack Gandhi because he had everyone wrapped around his peaceful finger. Gandhi is also 1 of the 2 Civs who have never entered a war in my Regent game. Although... the Babylonians (Aggressiveness4) is the other. And France (Aggressiveness1) who I had a good relationship with & an active trade with (I was selling her saltpeter) turned against me to declare war. On the other hand, I suppose every AI Civ has their price... and the Egyptians & Aztecs did what took to get France to turn against me. Oddly enough my 2 closest allies now are Germany & Russia (who are peacefully working together against the Egyptians & Aztecs as well)... which I never imagined.

[Zanzin]

If the AI is stronger than you, they treat you like crap. If the AI is weaker, it is really nice to you. Simple as that unfortunately...why kind a stronger AI realise that you might be a worthy allie?

[Sytass]

Actually, I have managed to stay out wars in one game, although I had stronger neighbours - Babylonians, Zulu and Aztecs. All had a superior military, all were stronger in culture, yet I was good friends with them.

That was after they had divided the continent and founded cities so intersprawled that the map looked like a Scotsman's kilt.

[gamma]

Pyrodrew, I think, is most on the money. Civ3 has this syndrome where the only way to fight fire is with more fire. The result is a game with only one winning strategy. It needs to work more like rock-paper-scissors. An ICS strategy should be beatable by a perfectionist strategy, which in turn can be beatable by a directed military strategy, which can be overcome by diplomacy, which can be beaten by tech stockpiling, which is defeated by ICS. Or something like that. The best loops like these are loops of three, and the more loops you have, the richer the game becomes. Case in point: StarCraft. I've never seen a more balanced MP game (although the AI is lacking).

Civ3's AI engine is not the problem here; it's that Civ3's rules encourage too few strategies.